Culpado por Suspeita

Upon reading through 20 or so of the last reviews of "Guilty by Suspicion" it dawned on me that the majority of the reviewers are only vaguely familiar with the history associated with the film. Robert De Niro's DAVID MERRILL is an almost direct representation of real-life director ELIA KAZAN, known for such great films as "A Streetcar Named Desire" and "On the Waterfront". Only the names have been changed, but the main points of KAZAN's struggle are all intact. Even long-time friend Arthur Miller and wife Marilyn Monroe make an appearance (under different names, of course).

The story depicted in this film is not only perfectly representational of the black list era Hollywood, but is actually perfectly factual and accurate down to the small details. Reviewers should really do more research before "guessing" at what they just saw.

The film Guilty by Suspicion showed the effects of the Hollywood blacklist in true-to-life form. Not only did it deal with how friendships and families were affected during this period, but it also showed how other American's, such as teachers, were also blacklisted. Blacklisting was not only a Hollywood occurrence.

Those interested in communism in Hollywood will find the screenplay exciting and interesting, as there are hints of actual transcripts from the House Committee on Un-American Activities scattered throughout the movie. I've watched it at least three times, and I never get bored, I just pick up more and more of the realities of this time period.

The movie is not meant to be used as a way to research this time period. It is a statement movie. It is a statement about the evilness of the red scare. It is not pro-communist, but it is pro American freedom of expression.

Guilty by Suspicion is a great educational movie that is supported by a great cast, and great subplots!

In 1947 the House Committee on Un-American Activities began an investigation into Communism in Hollywood. Shortly after this director David Merrill returns from filming abroad. It is not long before he is targeted for having attended "a few meetings" a few years ago. The approach is softly, softly with the committee just wanting Merrill to name some more names for them. When he refuses to help, he finds himself gradually cut out of studios and projects, with fewer and fewer people willing to take his calls.

The period of history around which this film is set is an interesting one and one that is worth knowing about as part of the whole "learning from history" ideal. However this is not the same as the film itself being good because unfortunately it is not what I would have liked. It relies too heavily on the informative nature of the recreation of the period rather than developing an interesting script with realistic characters. It doesn't help that the film tries to be all very serious and respectful but does rather fail and ends up coming over all earnest and self important. The script also tries not to really upset anyone who didn't take the moral stance of the fictional Merrill by just focusing on him even though it would have been a lot more interesting if it had had outrage, bitterness and realism at its heart.

Winkler directs without a great deal of style and his courtroom scene is average where it should have been the best scene of the film. De Niro works his material hard and makes for an engaging lead, however it is the lack of depth and complexity in his material that limits his performance. This is more or less true of the rest of the cast which, although starry, doesn't really provide anyone in particular with an opportunity to mark themselves out. Bening, Wendt, Wettig, Wanamaker, Sizemore, Scorsese, Cooper and others are good presences but not much more than that.

Overall then an interesting film in so much as it informs about an important period of history. However it is all very earnest and safe and lost a lot of potential for me. The cast is starry but the material is middle-of-the-road and didn't give anyone the complexity and outrage that the subject deserved.

This is a fairly good movie. It provides a compelling dramatic struggle and captures the paranoia of an era. However, like many Hollywood movies, it strives more to create a dramatic story than an accurate one.

This movie was originally to be based on the life of blacklisted writer/director Abraham Polonsky (Force of Evil, Body and Soul). Polonsky was working in France at the time of the HUAC hearings and a friend called to tell him not to come back or he'd be called to testify. He deliberately came back for the express purpose of telling HUAC where they could stick it. This is a good story as an anecdote, but not a great story for a movie.

The one place in which this movie (and many other movies) softens the history is by making the protagonist politically neutral. It is certainly true that many people accused were not communists or had only attended a meeting out of curiosity, but this is not true for everybody. Many of these people were devout socialists. As Polonsky has said on occasion "During the Great Depression, anybody with a brain considered Communism. The Capitalist system was BROKE. Communism looked like a smart bet." While many of these people reconsidered as the nation returned to prosperity, a large number did not.

Most of the famous Hollywood Ten were still believers in socialism when they were blacklisted. There is no evidence that any of them were spies for the Soviet Union-- many of them had already learned that the USSR was not the socialist paradise they dreamed of-- but they did believe in the writings of Mark and Engels. It is also true that they placed socialist themes in their films. They created gangsters who only cared about money, families screwed over by greedy real estate brokers and poor saps who put it all in the stock market.

However, none of this was illegal. They had every right to believe in whatever politics they chose to. They had every right to create these films-- and their movies seemed to have a resonance with the audience. They're lives and careers were destroyed because they held political beliefs that some viewed as threatening.

I also want to point out that Elia Kazan was not the model for this film. Elia Kazan has been repeatedly condemned by Polonsky and others who were blacklisted. He chose to name names and to allow the HUAC to bully him. I don't condemn him for this like other people. As this movie shows, so much was on the line for people who HUAC sets their sights on. Kazan cracked. He failed to be a hero, when the time came. This doesn't mark him a coward, merely something less than a hero. "On the Waterfront," while not a direct explanation of his actions, is an excellent look at his state of mind around that time.

While yes, I have not spent much time reviewing this movie, I felt it necessary to set the record straight about history.

The merit of this film is that it portrays the mechanism, the mentality and the impact on human character of what might very well be any communist regime there ever was in a stunningly perfect way (as a person grown up in a socialist country, believe me - I know!) - only here represented by people who are supposed to prevent communism from spreading! A great comment on human nature - whether intended or not is less important. If I didn't know better, I'd believe this was a Hollywood remake of some film about Stalin's 30:s purges or Polish repressions against the right wing combatants in the 50:s. Solid performance from De Niro, supported by a talented cast. Martin Scorsese appears in a cameo that must be one of the most extensive in his acting career.